In the Right

hanryufan: Full image

Thu, 23 May 2013 01:16:10 -0500

Full image

okcniceguys: wtfniceguys: thekawaiiestvorlon: wtfniceguys: th...

Wed, 22 May 2013 23:33:00 -0500

wtfniceguys:

thekawaiiestvorlon:

wtfniceguys:

thekawaiiestvorlon:

genderbutt:

stfusexists:

stfuhatemongers:

Is being friends with a woman really that awful?

If men REALLY took rejection this well, women wouldn’t have to hesitate to be blunt. But I’ve ignored enough cat callers to know that often isn’t the case. And it just isn’t worth it to me to suss out which type of reaction any given dude is gonna have at my own risk.

Ummmm guys, if you’re “friend-zoned” doesn’t that mean you realize that she’s not into you??? And wants to be your friend??? At that point if you waste time trying to seduce her it’s your own damn fault for being a douche who can’t take no for an answer (an implied no is still a no).

Alright ladies, listen up, because this is important.

When a man is interested in you romantically, he is not interested in you as a friend. He is interested in you romantically. They are two very different kinds of relationship. Men are conditioned (either by evolution or by cultural norms) to pursue that which they desire. If he desires you, he’s not going to stop desiring you if he’s still in constant contact with you. That will just make him more and more frustrated that he is not engaging you on a romantic level. It is not good for his mental health. Don’t try and make this about you and your hurt feelings that he doesn’t want to be your friend, because that is small potatoes to his biological frustration.

While some men don’t take rejection well, neither do some women. But it’s better for everyone because even if the guy or girl makes an ass of themselves, it is clearly communicated that nothing is going to be happening on the romantic level, and he or she can move on with their lives and look elsewhere. Wanting to be just friends with someone who is romantically interested in you is just dangling before them the small, false hope of a possible future relationship. You are wasting not just their time, but your own.

Two key points:

1) No man is entitled to your body, ladies.

2) You are not entitled to a man’s friendship.

Deal with it.

You know when someone starts out with “Listen up, ladies” it’s going to be bad.

Thing is, if what he was saying were true (which is most certainly is not), things would be a lot easier. Nice Guys™ would just ask a girl that they liked out on a date, instead of pretending to be their friend just to get into their pants. But that’s not the way it works. As the people before me mentioned, a lot of guys do NOT handle rejection this well! There’s another statement I don’t like either:
” Wanting to be just friends with someone who is romantically interested in you is just dangling before them the small, false hope of a possible future relationship.”
This bothers me a lot. So if a guy asks a girl out, and she says no, she’s supposed to cut off all contact with him? How is that fair to the guy? I mean, that would feel awful, asking someone out and not only being turned down, but being completely ignored? Really bro, think about what you’re suggesting.

Also, I don’t know of any woman who feels entitled to a friendship with a man. However, if I were friends with someone and they suddenly stopped being my friend once they found out we weren’t ever going to bone, yes, my feelings would be hurt. It’s not a matter of entitlement, it’s a matter of feeling used, and having your trust violated.

It’s that she should not suggest the position of “friendship.” The rejection should be clear. There is a difference between “cutting all contact” and not suggesting “being friends.” If you guys are meant to remain friends, that will happen organically. I have pointed out already that we are conditioned to pursue that which we desire, and an invitation to “friendship” presents, to us, further opportunity to try and win you over.

If he suggests friendship, and then grows resentful, that is his own fault, because he is tormenting himself and wasting your time. If you are the one who suggests friendship, you are getting what you want while he is not, because you are receiving whatever benefit you did from contact with him before (the form of contact you desire), while he receives no such desired benefit.

I’m glad you think romantic relationships are all about boning. Seriously though, by contextualizing romantic desire as simply a desire for sex, you are dishonestly reframing the situation. If that was the case, the guy would purchase a prostitute, or find an easy girl. No, they are investing their time (and sometimes money) in you. Even if they do want to bone, the fact that easier avenues exist to reach that goal are present puts lie to the idea that relationships are all about sex.

And as for entitlement, just look at the OP:

Is being friends with a woman really that awful?

If a guy wanted to be your friend he would be your friend. If a guy wants you romantically that’s a whole different ballgame. They are not equivalent forms of relationship, so don’t pretend that they are. Even if some guys don’t take rejection well, fucking reject them. Either they burn the birdge, or you hurt their feelings, but either way the process if expedited and you save everyone else a lot of time and trouble (yes, even him) and he can move on that much more quickly.

The individuals in the image make it very clear their stance. They would prefer clear rejection to the mealy-mouthed psuedo-rejection of “let’s be friends.” In fact, a woman, Pang Shong Yang, seems to be whole-heartedly agreeing with them. When we want you romantically, we don’t want to be your friend, we want to be in a romantic relationship with you. Those desires don’t magically go away when you suggest friendship, because we are driven to pursue our desires. If our feelings don’t magically dissipate, but the focus of our desires is still present and engaging with us, we will still think we have a shot, despite all reasonable evidence to the contrary.

So if a guy isn’t just your friend because you desire it, and he’s holding on to resentment because his feelings aren’t going away, he’s an asshole?

And if a guy, upon being rejected, chooses not to waste his time with a kind of relationship he does not desire, he’s an asshole?

There’s not pleasing you.

Oh shit, IT GOT WORSE.

“The rejection should be clear.” If telling someone that you’re not romantically interested in them is not clear enough, that’s YOUR problem, not anyone else’s.

The whole “an invitation to “friendship” presents, to us, further opportunity to try and win you over” is BEYOND creepy! If someone turns you down, DO. NOT. PURSUE. Do not view their friendship as anything more than friendship. If you are only pretending to be someone’s friend to date them/sleep with them, you are a jerk who does not deserve friends at all.

“If that was the case, the guy would purchase a prostitute, or find an easy girl.” Oh look, you’re a misogynist AND sex-negative. I’m surprised girls have even friendzoned you. If I were them, I’d “get-the-fuck-away-from-me zone” you.

“If a guy wanted to be your friend he would be your friend. If a guy wants you romantically that’s a whole different ballgame.” You know who else does that? EVERYONE. Yes, men are not the only ones capable of wanting some people as romantic partners and others as platonic partners. Mind-blowing, I know.

“Even if some guys don’t take rejection well, fucking reject them. Either they burn the birdge, or you hurt their feelings, but either way the process if expedited and you save everyone else a lot of time and trouble (yes, even him) and he can move on that much more quickly.” Oh, so even if they’re violent, we should reject them? Trust me, plenty of women have been attacked, beaten, fired, berated, spit on, etc because of rejection. Don’t you DARE just tell people that they NEED to “just fucking reject them” because you are not in the way of the same kind of danger many women are. Your male privilege is showing.

“The individuals in the image make it very clear their stance. They would prefer clear rejection to the mealy-mouthed psuedo-rejection of “let’s be friends.”” Well, sorry to break it to you, but typically the guys who complain about being friend-zoned have been PRETENDING to be someone’s friend for weeks (or even months or years) to try and get with them, so the “let’s just be friends” is basically saying “I’d rather keep things the way they are.”

“Those desires don’t magically go away when you suggest friendship, because we are driven to pursue our desires.” NOPE. The “I’m a man, I’ve got instincts and drives and URGES” is a bullshit argument that men use to justify their shitty actions. NOPE.

“So if a guy isn’t just your friend because you desire it, and he’s holding on to resentment because his feelings aren’t going away, he’s an asshole?” Yeah, if he was only pretending to be my friend for months and has zero interest in me when I don’t want to date him, yes, he is an asshole. Glad we agree.

“There’s not pleasing you.” Yes, there is. It’s called being forward with your intentions, and not pressing the issue when a person says no.

Wtfniceguys covered the main issues, but… well, as a straight dude who definitely doesn’t fit thekawaiiestvorlon’s description of what we want and feel, I wanna share my own experiences, just for a little perspective and also so former/recovering Nice Guys™ have one example of how to act correctly when your affection isn’t returned.

“When a man is interested in you romantically, he is not interested in you as a friend. He is interested in you romantically… If he desires you, he’s not going to stop desiring you if he’s still in constant contact with you.” For me this is totally false. I work at a summer camp with a high ratio of women to men (we’re outnumbered something like 4:1) and I’m in constant contact with every one of them. I’ve made close friends with some amazing coworkers, some of whom I’ve also totally crushed on. When I confessed my feelings and they didn’t return them, the rejection hurt. It always does. Sometimes I needed a couple hours alone to be grumpy and mope.

But you know what? I got better. And they are still dear friends. There’s this one girl who lives several hundred miles away and during my spring break I visited just so we could reminisce about work and take dozens of selfies. I was under no illusion it would turn into “something more”. There’s another girl who visits occasionally and we take long walks and chat for hours. I’m glad they “friendzoned” me! Being their friend is pretty great.

And what’s funny is that my romantic feelings have mostly washed away, though I wouldn’t turn down a date from some of the girls I’ve liked, if they change their mind. Maybe it’s just who I am, that sometimes romantic feelings issue out of my friendships, that my crushes ebb and flow, that I’m able to redirect my affections if one girl turns me down. Maybe I’m unusual. But let’s not generalize. Some men like women both normally and romantically, and some men only want one or the other, and that’s cool. It’s how a man expresses his affections and how he takes the woman’s possible responses that determines whether he’s a Nice Guy™.

All I really have to add to the main conversation (aside from completely agreeing with wtfniceguys) is that “let’s be friends” is a pretty clear rejection of romantic interest in this culture (if you’ve been using your friendship as a stepping stone to romance, I don’t see how you can interpret it any other way—she is literally telling you she’d rather keep the relationship where it is currently). She’s not actually asking for friendship per se; she’s letting you down easy. Please respect the effort she’s making to be gentle with you.

My gosh, both sides are twisted and warped in many ways but also have a few good points. How is this such a mishmash of gross and on the right track? Okcniceguys said a lot of right things here, but he’s missing a different perspective. I know of men who have started a friendship for the purpose of being friends, then started desiring them romantically (not the same as sexually). They asked for said form of relationship and got let down, but neither of them wanted to stop being friends; they were really close platonically. However, the men never lost the strong romantic attraction, and the fact that they were still so close just kept that unfulfilled desire at the forefront.

Whose fault is this? Nobody’s. It’s just a sad mismatch of desires. Now what should be the next course of action, and whose responsibility is it to engage it? There are (at least) two options. One is to cease the friendship so the romantically-interested can move on properly. The other is to continue the friendship as-is, and hopefully the romantically-interested can become content with the state of affairs. Who should be the one to make this decision? The one who has the problem. In this case, the man, since it’s assumed in this hypothetical that the woman is content with the friendship. The man has to decide whether he can’t take the emotional longing, and it would be better to get away to take his mind off it, or he can learn to be okay with just being friends and go pursue someone else romantically.

Now, let’s regard relationship dysfunctions. These are things that are not okay:

- Pretending to be friends with a person for any reason (most relevant in this case, for wanting a different type of relationship)

- Using romantic advances to get something you want (most relevant in this case, women leading a guy on or even pretending to give him what he desires in order to get him to do things for her)

- Holding it against the one ending the friendship if they decide they need to split to save from torturing their feelings (most relevant in this case, assuming they were faking friendship)

- Holding it against the one who enjoys the friendship without wanting romance involved (most relevant in this case, assuming they are users)

- Being rude when rejecting another person. This is not the same as being blunt. You are fully justified in saying no outright. However, please be kind to your fellow human being and don’t cause them any undue grief or humiliation

- Reacting immaturely or unacceptably to rejection. The other person is not wrong for rejecting you. They can do it for any reason. You don’t have to agree with the reason or find it a good one, but you do have to respect their decision, without argument on why they’re wrong and should date you. It is perfectly fine to be disappointed or embarrassed, but do not take it out on others.

- Blaming the other person for offering to “just be friends.” It is not a demand (and is usually just an offer to stay the way you were) but an attempt to assure you they are not mad or disgusted at you, and that they still feel amiable towards you and value you as a person. You have every right to either accept or decline the offer of retaining friendship.

- Deciding to do whatever the other person wants because you love and care about them, but getting angry and playing the victim when the other doesn’t reciprocate or give in to your wishes. It is YOU who decided to bend over backwards for another unequally, and you can either stop doing so or accept that the give-and-take is uneven. Both of you are fully justified in giving only what you feel proper or comfortable giving

- Becoming offended if the romantically interested friend stops bending over backward for you. If said bending-over was anything beyond what you think both of you would do for each other, there is zero reason to feel slighted if said behavior ends.

- Continuing to try to win a friend over (read: harassing them) after they have clearly made known they are not interested (“just be friends” is clear and an appropriate offer which you have the choice of taking or not). Fighting to win your love’s affections is not romantic or devoted when the love does not want your advances—it’s self-centered and disrespectful of their opinions and wishes. If you and the other party can’t come to an agreement on what is comfortable in the relationship, it’s likely best to end it.

And I think that’s about it, ladies and gents! Moral of the story: don’t be a victimized/entitled/creepy/fakey nice guy OR a victimized/man-hating/antipathetic/self-centered feminist. It is completely possible to not be dicks to the other gender!

special-snowflake-hall-of-fame: operationinfuriatedpunishment: ...

Wed, 22 May 2013 20:16:47 -0500

special-snowflake-hall-of-fame:

operationinfuriatedpunishment:

radicalfeministhyena:

Did I mention I love 4chan yet?

PATRIARCHY INVESTIGATOR

MY TRICORDER IS READING ELEVATED LEVELS OF TESTOSTERONE

THIS ENTIRE AREA NEEDS TO BE STERILIZED

THE READER DETECTS 3.14 TERAHITLERS OF OPPRESSION. THE ENTIRE AREA NEEDS TO BE QUARANTINED TO STOP THE SPREAD OF CIS MALE PRIVILEGE.

a-lot-of-nerve: in-the-right: Pretty sure Walt Disney would be...

Wed, 22 May 2013 19:46:28 -0500

a-lot-of-nerve:

in-the-right:

Pretty sure Walt Disney would be appalled.

Thank God. Disney was a fucking anti-Semitic racist.

And clearly, calling him unfounded names completely unrelated to the topic at hand means he had no moral standards whatsoever. Also, no. He wasn’t.

Kitchen Nightmares - Amy’s Baking Company Ho. Ly. Crap....

Wed, 22 May 2013 04:51:25 -0500

Kitchen Nightmares - Amy’s Baking Company

Ho. Ly. Crap. Now presenting the EXACT OPPOSITE of Christian behavior. These two are INSANE.

the-one-you-will-hate: magicallycute: libertarian-dharma-initia...

Wed, 22 May 2013 03:29:26 -0500

the-one-you-will-hate:

magicallycute:

libertarian-dharma-initiative:

runningrepublican:

hannahyololong:

Now I want everyone to replace the world men with Blacks. Sounds racist right? Now replace men with Gays? Sounds hatefull right?

Now replace men with women? Extremely sexist right?

Why are statements like this humorous while others are offensive?

No penis no opinon would be the most sexist thing. That one is outlandish.

^Reblogging for commentary.

The jennamarbles one was a joke. ._.

Why’d you put that up there?

I think it was just to support the point.

I agree with the over all post tho.

conservativegirlonpolitics: lovechild1985: ericaamericaa: taki...

Wed, 22 May 2013 03:19:41 -0500

conservativegirlonpolitics:

lovechild1985:

ericaamericaa:

takingbackmyfirstamendmentrights:

byulibertarian:

self-ownership:

My thoughts exactly.

You can count on Nancy Pelosi’s twitter for top-notch comedy.

Unaffordable. Inaccessible. Unconstitutional.

Or is it Opposite Day for the Obama Administration?

#ObamaCareInThreeWords Unaffordable. Wrong. Unconstitutional.

#obamacareinthreewords We Gonna Die.

Wooow. Pretty much everything about Obama in this is terrible....

Wed, 22 May 2013 03:17:23 -0500

Wooow. Pretty much everything about Obama in this is terrible. There’s just a smorgasbord of reasons to point out regarding why this man fails as a leader. Top two examples here: 1. He treats those, who risk far more than he does to protect this country, like servants, with a complete lack of respect for their status and sacrifices, and 2. he cannot form a coherent sentence. What sniveling sad excuse for a man.

Pretty sure Walt Disney would be appalled.

Wed, 22 May 2013 02:55:06 -0500

Pretty sure Walt Disney would be appalled.

Poor Richard's News: Inspector General says Justice Department leaked documents to smear Fast and Furious whistleblower

Wed, 22 May 2013 00:34:57 -0500

Poor Richard's News: Inspector General says Justice Department leaked documents to smear Fast and Furious whistleblower:

poorrichardsnews:

The White House and the Justice Department are running out of closets to hide their skeletons!

New details about the Justice Department’s bully tactics against reporters and whistleblowers are emerging. Not only did the Obama administration snoop through the private emails of reporters covering the story, the Inspector General for the DOJ said in his latest report that department officials leaked private information of Operation Fast and Furious whistleblowers in order to smear them.

from Breitbart:

The Department of Justice (DOJ) Inspector General published a new report Monday that confirms former U.S. Attorney for Arizona Dennis Burke leaked a document intended to smear Operation Fast and Furious scandal whistleblower John Dodson.

The DOJ IG said it found “Burke’s conduct in disclosing the Dodson memorandum to be inappropriate for a Department employee and wholly unbefitting a U.S. Attorney.”

“We are referring to OPR our finding that Burke violated Department policy in disclosing the Dodson memorandum to a member of the media for a determination of whether Burke’s conduct violated the Rules of Professional Conduct for the state bars in which Burke is a member,” the IG wrote.

Burke resigned from his post as U.S. Attorney over the incident in August 2011, the first major Department of Justice official to leave his or her post in the Fast and Furious scandal. He said after the fact, in interviews with congressional investigators, that he now views leaking the document as a “mistake.”

In addition to Burke’s involvement in leaking the document, emails the IG uncovered show senior officials at the Department of Justice discussed smearing Dodson.

read the rest

Read the Inspector General’s report here.

It just keeps getting worse for Attorney General Eric Holder and President Obama (yes, liberals, the Justice Department is part of the Executive Branch). Pretty soon, they’re going to have to rename the White House the House of 1,000 Scandals.

"Boundless: Discovering God in Your Eating Disorder" by Ashli Roussel

Tue, 21 May 2013 19:08:15 -0500

"Boundless: Discovering God in Your Eating Disorder" by Ashli Roussel:

In Boundless, Discovering God in Your Eating Disorder, young Ashli Roussel shares her battle with an eating disorder that nearly took her life and the road to development of a deeper relationship with God that ultimately saved her. Not only does Ashli share the intimate details of her struggle physically, emotionally, and spiritually, but she takes the reader on a 30 day devotional journey to help them find their way to God’s restoration - and new life in Him. Join Ashli as she shares first hand her amazing story of victory through surrender.

I know Ashli personally; she has been a great encourager to me in some of my darkest times. She is extremely mature and spiritual. God has blessed her with the gift of helping and uplifting others. I have little doubt her book will help those with eating disorders and even those without (I’ve ordered her book for myself today). Her relationship with God is an inspiration.

I encourage you all to consider purchasing her book, for yourself or those you think may also benefit from it:

http://www.amazon.com/Boundless-Ashli-Roussel/dp/0982577362

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/boundless-ashli-roussel/1113770227?ean=9780982577363

ATTENTION OKLAHOMA RESIDENTS:

Tue, 21 May 2013 04:08:53 -0500

Housing and food available at Oklahoma University for those displaced by tornadoes. Call (405) 325-2511 for more information.

sentimental-lydisabled: In the Right: sentimental-lydisabled: in-the-right:...

Tue, 21 May 2013 03:24:27 -0500

sentimental-lydisabled:

In the Right: sentimental-lydisabled: in-the-right: sarcastic-mister-knowitall:…

sentimental-lydisabled:

in-the-right:

sarcastic-mister-knowitall:

Morality is absolutely more than a social construct. It’s an evolutionary adaptation with demonstrable benefits to our species.

Then, if morality is absolute and not relative, which is what you seem to be saying…

Though I would love to be able to address all of your questions, I feel these videos will be the easiest, quickest, most concise and informative way to answer you basic questions that have already been addressed and long since debunked.

And by the way, evolution is “biological”, as you put it; this doesn’t take out brain development. Evolution evolves anatomical adaptions including in the brain. Brains and cognitive mechanisms evolve, and the development of altruism and empathy would have served us a purpose as social animals in the preservation of our species.

Morality in animals: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcJxRqTs5nk

Morality explained: “Good without gods” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7xt5LtgsxQ

“Not-so-good-books” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSS-88ShJfo

“Objectivity and Oughtness” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN-yLH4bXAI

Thank you for the links. They were very helpful in showing me how atheists such as yourself think. However, as usual in atheist arguments, the video portrayed true Christianity in a very flawed light. For one, science and Christianity mesh perfectly, as science is the study of the order and organization of God’s creation. Learning new things in science only enlighten us further about what God has made; if used correctly and not abused, it is not the enemy. For another, we don’t hate or wish ill on those who we see as immoral. We do side against those that spread evil worldviews, but we never wish them hell. Hell is a consequence not created by us but by our creator, for those who reject him. Hell is the absence of God.

Furthermore, as human beings, even with the aid of science, we will never come to understand everything in the universe. There will always be more to learn. That means our moral reasoning, if based on science, will always be imperfect and flawed. Allow me to quote Robert Jastrow:

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

All of God’s laws DO have good reasons. The fact that we don’t yet know some of the reasons or don’t see every ramification of what, on the surface, seems to not cause harm, doesn’t mean the truth isn’t there. And God allows us to discover it as we seek the knowledge of his creation. We have discovered many scientific reasons for certain sins being immoral, as they actually do cause harm. Our faith in God allows us to do the right thing before our insufficient intellect discovers why. That’s why faith is not the same as blind faith. God has proven himself perfect and good, so we follow him because, as he is our creator, we trust that he knows what behaviors are best or wrong for us.

And, so you know, thinking God is constrained to the laws he gave to us is fallacious. It’s like saying the President shouldn’t be allowed into classified areas because laymen aren’t. Yes, he is good, but his ability to be good, just, and fair, surpasses our own ability and understanding, and considering he created us, he has every right to un-create or dictate to us what is good. God does not contradict himself, and any perception that he does is derived from an incomplete understanding (or an unwillingness to understand, a twisting of the facts). The hubris in the notion that we have to be able to understand all of God in order for him to be understandable is incredible. It’s like a child who thinks they know as much about what’s best as their parents, and if they can’t see why something is the way a parent says, the parent must be wrong.

It seems to me the system of ethics referred to by the video is that of utilitarianism (teleology). If causing the least amount of suffering is the main qualifier, then would it not be moral to dispose of those who are unable to contribute to society, the drains on our resources? Would it not make sense to sacrifice the few for the many? But in deontology, which Christians subscribe to, our ethics are less bleak and cruel to the individual. We follow set principles of behavior, because if we do the right thing, we know God will take care of the rest.

As for the stint regarding brain readings when the subject is considering what he thinks and what God thinks, the conclusion is way off base. The reason thinking about God’s opinion emits similar signals as thinking about our own is because WE FASHION OUR OPINION AFTER GOD’S. And our reasoning is not “intuitive,” as they put it. It’s not us guessing what God wants based on what we think. That would be ridiculous and egocentric. We base God’s opinion off of the Word he gave to us himself. Solid and infallible.

Regarding the origin of morality, who says God can’t have given man the ability to have empathy and feel the urge to reciprocate? Who says God didn’t give animals prosocial instincts? It would only make sense. None of this fits evolution any more than it fits God. By the way, doing something for someone else because they’ll do something for you later isn’t morality. If it were, there would be no reason to help the helpless or needy. What that is is planning for the future in selfish terms. It exhibits intelligence but not morality.

Again, thank you for the videos. Seeing the full perspective of the other side allows me to more easily identify the problems and truths in that thinking and fine-tune my own beliefs.

So why do you think god flattened that town?

Tue, 21 May 2013 01:12:00 -0500

I think the town was flattened because a tornado hit it, because weather. For info on why the world is harsh and imperfect, click here! :)

americas-liberty: Mile-wide tornado that hit Moore,...

Mon, 20 May 2013 20:16:24 -0500

americas-liberty:

Mile-wide tornado that hit Moore, Oklahoma.

At the moment, 37 are confirmed killed including 7 children. 17 more children are unaccounted for in a collapsed school and are feared dead.

My prayers go out to all affected.

Those… Those are houses demolished. Entire families injured, killed, or uprooted. Prayers for all these people.

sentimental-lydisabled: in-the-right: sarcastic-mister-knowitall: Morality is absolutely more...

Mon, 20 May 2013 19:40:00 -0500

sentimental-lydisabled:

in-the-right:

sarcastic-mister-knowitall:

Morality is absolutely more than a social construct. It’s an evolutionary adaptation with demonstrable benefits to our species.

Then, if morality is absolute and not relative, which is what you seem to be saying (?), where does its absoluteness come from? What causes something to be right and wrong certainly? What is the authority on morality?

Morality is the alleviation of suffering in yourself and others. The understanding that we don’t want certain things done to us entitles us to not want to do the same to others. Moral behavior is expressed in animals as well as a sense of fairness and empathy. We have learned from history and experience, therefore, mankind has grown in their morality. Women being second class is no longer accepted in a lot of cultures, as well as, slavery - which were endorsed in the bible.

Not to mention the fact you ignore the majority of the Bible’s laws suggests you are moral IN SPITE of religion. Your picking and choosing basically shows how your morality comes through from the natural need to want peace and less suffering towards yourself and others. If we truly followed the bible, it would be a dark world indeed. And we’ve seen it in history. It was called the Dark Ages.

Show me where in the Bible I don’t do what is asked of me “because of my morality”. This assuming you comprehend that the Old Testament was written as a specific set of laws for the ancient Israelites only and doesn’t apply to people in this day and age. Which is pretty basic, so…

So anyway, what moral/empathetic/fair behaviors are you speaking of that are seen in animals? And how are moral lessons genetically passed on via evolution? If evolution is purely biological, why would our sense of maturity increase through generations with our bodies? And finally, I am dubious that the desire to alleviate suffering can be the entirety of your moral code. Are there not people you try to hurt in various ways if you vehemently disagree with them? Is there no one you justify to yourself that causing any sort of suffering was the right course?

EDIT: Ah, sorry, I mistook you for sarcastic-mister-knowitall temporarily. I’ve deleted anything I meant to be addressed to him.

dearcispeople: Dear Cis People: You don’t get to have an...

Mon, 20 May 2013 02:42:08 -0500

dearcispeople:

Dear Cis People:

You don’t get to have an opinion on being trans*; if I come out to you it is not a space for you to tell me all your thoughts on being trans* ever, or for you to say you don’t like it. It’s me telling you how you’re going to talk to me from now on.

Sorry (but not), no. That’s not how reality works. We have the right to say what we think, and you have no right to control how we talk to you. That being said, politeness and kindness is always good on both sides (which you seem incapable of, at least at first glance), but of our volition, not your demands or force. Kindly learn this.

dearcispeople: Dear Cis People: When do I get to ask you the...

Mon, 20 May 2013 02:38:11 -0500

dearcispeople:

Dear Cis People:

When do I get to ask you the ridiculous questions you ask me? And no, you can’t be offended. Because it’s your own fault for being cis.

What ridiculous questions? And why should I be offended?

sarcastic-mister-knowitall: Morality is absolutely more than a social construct. It’s an...

Mon, 20 May 2013 02:12:51 -0500

sarcastic-mister-knowitall:

Morality is absolutely more than a social construct. It’s an evolutionary adaptation with demonstrable benefits to our species.

Then, if morality is absolute and not relative, which is what you seem to be saying (?), where does its absoluteness come from? What causes something to be right and wrong certainly? What is the authority on morality?

lcheeseboy: Ah, would you mind linking to the post/posts that you think refute the anon’s...

Sun, 19 May 2013 13:32:54 -0500

lcheeseboy:

Ah, would you mind linking to the post/posts that you think refute the anon’s statements? Or at least whatever you tagged it as.

http://in-the-right.tumblr.com/tagged/gender should about cover my opinion on the subject. I’d say start looking at page 3 and beyond; the meaty stuff seems to have been getting covered up by fluff recently.